Mr. Bessler's power source

[jim_mich]

I have this obsession with truth. I have almost no respect for anyone that is not truthful. Every once in a while Ralph post things that are absolutely false. I'm not talking about differences of opinion. I'm talking about an absolutely false statement of engineering type fact. In this case Ralph stated flat out that the 45th parallel around the Earth is half the size of the Equator. If an uneducated person were to make this error of statement I could cut them some slack, but Ralph tells us that he is an engineer. If he really does have the skills and the knowledge that it takes to be an engineer then he must be held to a higher standard. This higher standard requires him to correct any false or incorrect statements of fact when they are pointed out. The problem I have with Ralph is that many times he fails to understand his errors when they're pointed out. This raises into question his engineering skills. When Ralph fails to correct his untruthful statement then I must wonder why? I don't think Ralph is a deliberate liar. I think it is more likely that Ralph truly fails to understand why his statement is false. By not understanding why his statement is false he shows a lack of intellectual ability. If he lacks intellectual ability then he is not being truthful about his engineering background. If Ralph is an engineer then he would quickly recognize his mistake and correct it. If Ralph fails to recognize his mistake then he is lying about being an engineer.

As I said, I have an obsession with truth.

Ralph, posting a bunch of meaningless garbage formulas will only impress those individuals that don't understand them. For instance, the axis dimensions that you show for this gyro is 0.01 Meters and the force is .005 Newton. Do you understand why these numbers are garbage values? The 0.01 Meters equals 0.394 inches, which is a truly tiny gyro. The force of .005 Newton is 0.001 pounds of force, which is about the weight of a gnat.

As I said, I have an obsession with truth.

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich,

You opened the issue ignoring my "hypothetical disclaimer" and you are still ignoring the fact that I said it was a hypothetical statement that the diameter at 45 was half of 90. Can you not relate hypothetical to suppositional, uncertain,theoretical etc. Is it to much for you to admit that you jumped in without fully disseminating my statement. To refresh your memory I will quote it again.

Note! this is strictly hypothetical and responses should be valued as such!

Dammit when I do stand corrected, have I not always admitted it and apologized to all involved. Show me one time where I have not either renounced an erroneous statement, or stood fast in debate to conclude a point!

You are as hard headed as I am. This is one time and not the first you have misread or ignored my statements, then attempted to debunk me by twisting or exaggerating my claims. I believe you call it "waffling"

In my opinion it is your image that is being degraded here by continuing
to claim my statement was based on fact when it very clearly was not. You are the one that will not admit to making the mistake of not reading my disclosure

I am not interested in being the "king of the hill" of this forum, which appears to be an important issue to you with your attacks and hint of egotistical flavor. Have you ever publicly admitted to be wrong about anything, such as a few years ago announcing a running wheel published in O-U energy news?

And yes as far as I am concerned the formulas I posted are garbage! I rested with assurance that you would make a point of it. That is why I do not make a habit of posting such gibberish. I do not need a page full of equations to know if I drop a ten pound weight on my ingrown toenail it is going to create an impact force that will be felt!

Feel free to correct me when I am wrong, but please read my compositions before attacking me on a personal level. I am always open for debate, not a public personal feud. As Randall states this is not the place for a ploy of personal degradation.

On another issue of your mention, there are all kinds of engineers in many fields. Even an uneducated but skilled operator of earth moving equipment is called an "operating engineer"

If Ralph is an engineer then he would quickly recognize his mistake and correct it. If Ralph fails to recognize his mistake then he is lying about being an engineer.

An engineer in a given field can make a mistake, especially if subject matter is not in his field. I am human and yes I make mistakes. when in the past I made a mistake I corrected it or publicly stated I was wrong. If you wish to call me a liar and it makes you feel better go ahead. but the day may come when you will be asked to substantiate the claim. I simply consider the source and I believe a portion of the members will do so also.

You have made known mistakes and I would not consider you human if you had not. I am not a liar and I do not make an issue out of being recognized as an engineer

If I were to sign my name "Ralph Lortie PE"
An engineer that has completed the training, exams, and field work required to be fully licensed. (PE certification is required for any engineer in the United States who works on projects that will affect the public.)

What significance would that have to do with a computer programming engineer, electrical engineer or a doctorate of science that is so diversified I consider it a farce!

To boast of being a learned person and flaunt an acronym attached to their name while chasing perpetual motion ( a pursuit of cranks) is contradiction in my books and is not appreciated by ones peers.

Now can we please end this. You have made your point and I have reciprocated, I am not a liar, I am retired and all my certifications are outdated/expired. I call myself a BCME in "jest" (Blue Collar Mechanical Engineer and I could care less about the circumference of the earth at any given point. Research on gravity wheels or gravity powered machines is now my forte.

I do not believe that you can deny the fact that a self powered generator would be of great value in space. After all we will within a couple of years loose a multi-million dollar space project (Hubble) simply because the batteries that power the gyros are dying.


Ralph

[jim_mich]

Have you ever publicly admitted to be wrong about anything, such as a few years ago announcing a running wheel published in O-U energy news?

This is another Ralph Lortie lie. I have never announced having a running wheel anywhere at any time. I posted here on the Bessler forum an idea that I thought might work. That idea got picked up and published by other people over on the O-U forum and on another similar web-site. I admitted within a very short time that I had made a mistake and the idea would not work. Other people on those other forums came to the same conclusion at about the same time for the same reasons.

Ralph, please draw me a hypothetical picture were the 45º parallel encircles the Earth as half the diameter of the Equator. Hypothetically it cannot be done. Maybe the Earth would be pear shaped? But then hypothetically it would not be the Earth. If you wanted a hypothetical situation where the diameter is half the Equator then you should have used the 60º parallel instead. You keep trying to move this discussion in different directions other than the one single point that I am calling you on. That point is that you thought the 45º parallel would cut the Earth at a diameter equal to half the Equator, which is just not true. Even hypothetically speaking it is not true and cannot be true unless you develop some type of screwy math system.

Ralph, just admit that you made a mistake and move on and stop digger yourself deeper into a hole that you can't climb out from. In the future when I point out one of your errors please just acknowledge the mistake and move on, instead of questioning me about why it bothers me.

[rlortie]

Jim Mich,

Have you ever publicly admitted to be wrong about anything, such as a few years ago announcing a running wheel published in O-U energy news?

This is another Ralph Lortie lie.

Its not a lie its a question, "such as" describes an example seeking an objective answer, do you not see the question mark at the end of the statement. You fall into it every time.

That point is that you thought the 45º parallel would cut the Earth at a diameter equal to half the Equator, which is just not true.

No! you think that is what I thought simply because I used it as a hypothetical example to simplify things. For you to think I accepted it as fact is not true and I am tired of trying to clarify the fact.

I wish to end this! if it will make you dry up, I admit wrong to everything.

I am wrong to think the earth is flat and if you stand at the edge CF will fling you into space. I am wrong about ascertaining the circumference of a pear shape planet at any given degree. Who gives a rip, this forum is about Bessler not geology or plate tectonics.

I was wrong in being born, that's why my father put me in a box car, told me I would go a long way and then nailed the door shut. Before that he taught me how to swim, but by the time I got out of the bag to thank him he was gone.

I am wrong in any attempt to communicate/debate with you in a gentlemanly manner. I am so damn wrong about everything its a wonder Scott does not ban me. I am wrong to think James Randall could ever be wrong about anything. I am wrong to even consider making hypothetical statements, let alone post them. I am wrong to think that light is the absence of dark, or is it the other way around?

I am so wrong in your eyes about everything it makes me wonder why members privately communicate with me for advice and input. They all must really be stupid or they do not agree with your judgment of me.

In the future when I point out one of your errors please just acknowledge the mistake and move on

You say that as though you are never wrong, I should except your version and acknowledge that I am wrong without question. Damn I wish I was that sure of myself! How do you get that kind of self recognized aptitude to never be wrong. Is it ego or self conceit? "Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Einstein)

I am sorry that my mode of communication causes such distaste for your admiral sharp, acute mind that expects everything to be compatible with your standards of ego based logic. Your impulsive behavior to be king of the hill is quite obvious and I am sure your forum peers are quite aware of it.

Yours twuly
Wong Way Walf

[evgwheel]

Viva la difference

[Jon J Hutton]

Merry Christmas everyone,

Just a quick pic. Would you say that the picture is approx. correct. Or better put would the center of mass change if the float were on the bottom or top, or would it stay the same?


JJH

[Fletcher]

Merry Christmas to you too Jon .. the CoM will change depending on where the float is - the float has buoyancy or an upthrust from water pressure caused by displacement - that is because its volume is less dense than the fluid medium of the same volume - for it to be neutrally buoyant its average density would have to be the same [CoM stays in same place] - for it to sink to the bottom its average density would have to be greater than the same fluid volume.

So, depending on the floats average density, this will determine its buoyancy, or not - if it is more dense than the fluid [& starts at the top] it will sink to the bottom of the container & so the system COM will fall to its lowest vertical height possible - if the float starts at the bottom & has buoyancy [because it is less dense] then the float will raise & the system CoM will also lower however the float is able to provide some upthrust due to buoyancy force - this thrust is calculated by the volume of the float in weight [as if it were fluid] less the weight of the float [as it is] to give a net upthrust.

[Jon J Hutton]

Merry Christmas to you too Jon .. the CoM will change depending on where the float is

So do I understand you to say that the CoM will never go any higher than where it is when the float with the weight is at the bottom of the cylinder in other words if you were to tie the float to the bottom of the cyl would the CoM be higher than when it is untied and allowed to float. do not forget the float has a weight attached to it and the weight of the water is less than the weight it is lifting.

[winkle]

Winkle,





This is because the Earth is so big compared to your wheel, there is almost zero difference in gravity force at the floor and at the top of your house. So, to achieve the same thing with CF asks for a very big spaceship and... as Jim said.

sorry i have to be found in disagreement with you
there is a ride that comes the state fair every year
it has circular walls that you lean against as it spin's around and the floor drops down
CF keeps you pressed against the wall even though there is nothing to stand on
if that CF is sufficient to hold a 185 pd man and in some cases much larger against the wall
i believe that would be more than enough artificial gravity to turn a gravity wheel using several four pd weights
this does not require anywhere near the mass that is being spoken of


Ralph

IMO if a design can be found that works in gravity then replacing that constant force with springs would work in a non-gravity environment as well.

seems as though many folks believe that springs could replace gravity
i don't believe that to be true
without knowing how the wheel works that idea is just based on not much more than a wish and a hope

[Jon J Hutton]

Quote:
Merry Christmas to you too Jon .. the CoM will change depending on where the float is

So do I understand you to say that the CoM will never go any higher than where it is when the float with the weight is at the bottom of the cylinder in other words if you were to tie the float to the bottom of the cyl would the CoM be higher than when it is untied and allowed to float. do not forget the float has a weight attached to it and the weight of the water is less than the weight it is lifting.

I just did the experiment.... the CoM changes in direct porportion to where the weight in the cyl is. THIS IS GETTING REALLY INTERESTING

[Fletcher]

Yes - if you have tied off the float to the bottom of the cylinder the float will have a buoyancy force acting on it - at the same time the CoM of the cylinder [which contains the float] will be artificially high - when the float is released it will rise & heavier [more dense] fluid will displace its former position, & so the CoM will lower.

The thing to remember is that you had to provide energy to force the float down & tie it off & in the process of doing so you raised the Potential Energy of the system & the CoM - also, if you consider the whole system in isolation, but within a wheel, then its total weight is important as it applies torque to the wheel, even though there is a buoyancy force present - it can get quite complex accounting for the forces in play & the various actions & reactions - experiments are the only way to go to get a full appreciation.

[Jon J Hutton]

Nevermind

[winkle]

..

[winkle]

this is my opinion about the math that concluded that Mr. Bessler's 12 ft. wheel could only power a 25 watt light bulb

even as weak as it was it was said to stop it suddnly would lift a man off the ground

i believe that wheel was designed to be for show and could be reworked for much greater power

just enough strength to make them worth looking at but very little of their true potential

i believe he designed those show wheels to be weak to cause imitators to tend to use clock work springs and such in attempts to imitate his machines

i believe his designing of those wheels was much like his drawing and writing

all to make sure that most were fooled even by the wheels that he exhibited

[Jon J Hutton]

.. The CoM moves up as the weight moves up in water, using close wall cyl.